JetBuddy wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Considering that the potential A220-500 only has two competitors..

Airbus' own A320neo which is sold out for nearly a decade
Boeing's 737-8 which is grounded and sold out for nearly a decade

.. it seems like a good idea to ramp up the A220 line further and launch an A220-500.

(But maybe buy the rest of the A220 program first)

I think supply and demand would dictate you dont have to do anything when you're the only game in town

There's clearly more demand than supply at the moment. You don't have to do anything, but you could be forward leaning and try to leverage that demand into cash and even higher market share.

If Airbus decides to rest on their laurels and not take advantage of the current situation, it could go back and bite them in the ass in the future. In my opinion - (and others), there's likely not that much R&D necessary to stretch the aircraft.

Sure, its wise, but I bet it's even more wise to focus on 60 or 70 32#s a month and wait to see Boeing's plans.

The 220s airframe is far from ideal anyways. Its 2x3 so extending it makes it 321 length, its built for unnecessary range given its capacity and it has some serious design gremlins that hurt reliability and the engines are compounding that with their significant cost issues. And then there is the production and QC issues out of Montreal.

And all the fuel savings talk makes you wonder if people dont know what the E in NEO stands for.

Its far from a good bet to just pour money into the program when Boeing could come up with a better offering and Airbus would have to scrap it all and go to that secret airplane they've had on the drawing board.

The future replacement for the medium-haul aircraft, would that be the A320neo or A321neo?
The A220-500 could be a good replacement aircraft for the A320-200ceo, and the A321neo could replace the remaining A321ceo.
Moreover, which aircraft would replace the A330-200? The A330neo?

I think Airbus isn't too worried that an A220-500 will cannibalize the A320neo.

A220-500 will be shorter range and have less takeoff performance.

As I see it the A320neo with that SHARP package they were discussing a few years ago will give the A320neo similar takeoff characteristics to the A319neo but with more range than the A220-500. That should be enough product differentiation to avoid excessive cannibalization.

SwissCanuck wrote:

That slide also has an E140 with wing-mounted engines and a dash of "TBD" so I wouldn't read anything into it. "En bref, c'est de la merde."

And FLYERLHR, Boeing does not (despite the beliefs of some) make program launch decisions just because this forum has a chat about it. Nor does any other manufacturer. There is absolutely 0 indication Boeing is going to do anything more with the 767 platform at this time.

That slide shows a current 145 frame, but where do you see a 140 in it.

precure787 wrote:

Moreover, which aircraft would replace the A330-200? The A330neo?

The A330neo was launched on 14 July 2014 at the Farnborough Airshow, promising 14% better fuel economy per seat.
Judging by the rather anemic order statistics, many of the older A330 customers are either still flying the older jet, or have looked to the A321neo or up-gauged to the A350-900 or even switched to the Dreamliner.

Orders: A330 : Backlog
660 A330-200 21
42 A330-200F 4
789 A330-300 20
10 A330-800N 10
262 A330-900N 229

Half of the A330Neo have been bought by just three airlines:AIRASIA X MALAYSIA, DELTA AIR LINES, and IRAN AIR.
Iran Air had no older A330s, and Delta seems more interested in replacing the aging B767s than in replacing older A330s.

China purchased 230 of the older A330 models, but have yet to order a single A330neo.
66 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES
56 AIR CHINA
50 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES
21 HAINAN AIRLINES
7 BEIJING CAPITAL AIRLINES
5 SICHUAN AIRLINES
5 TIBET AIRLINES
6 TIANJIN AIRLINES
8 CASC
6 SHENZHEN AIRLINES
230

PacoMartin wrote:

precure787 wrote:

Moreover, which aircraft would replace the A330-200? The A330neo?

The A330neo was launched on 14 July 2014 at the Farnborough Airshow, promising 14% better fuel economy per seat.
Judging by the rather anemic order statistics, many of the older A330 customers are either still flying the older jet, or have looked to the A321neo or up-gauged to the A350-900 or even switched to the Dreamliner.

Orders: A330 : Backlog
660 A330-200 21
42 A330-200F 4
789 A330-300 20
10 A330-800N 10
262 A330-900N 229

Half of the A330Neo have been bought by just three airlines:AIRASIA X MALAYSIA, DELTA AIR LINES, and IRAN AIR.
Iran Air had no older A330s, and Delta seems more interested in replacing the aging B767s than in replacing older A330s.

China purchased 230 of the older A330 models, but have yet to order a single A330neo.
66 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES
56 AIR CHINA
50 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES
21 HAINAN AIRLINES
7 BEIJING CAPITAL AIRLINES
5 SICHUAN AIRLINES
5 TIBET AIRLINES
6 TIANJIN AIRLINES
8 CASC
6 SHENZHEN AIRLINES
230

Could you please keep the thread to the topic! Thanks a lot!

rbavfan wrote:

SwissCanuck wrote:

That slide also has an E140 with wing-mounted engines and a dash of "TBD" so I wouldn't read anything into it. "En bref, c'est de la merde."

And FLYERLHR, Boeing does not (despite the beliefs of some) make program launch decisions just because this forum has a chat about it. Nor does any other manufacturer. There is absolutely 0 indication Boeing is going to do anything more with the 767 platform at this time.

That slide shows a current 145 frame, but where do you see a 140 in it.

145 my apologies, not 140. But regardless, zoom in - the pic next to E145 has wing-mounted engines. 145 has tail mounted engines.

Edit: After a second look its seems to be a shrunk 170

There is no doubt a simple stretch of the CS300 will be the most compelling C Series member.

It would have enough range to cover all Europe, it is about 10% better in term of cost when expressed on per seat basis against the A320neo. It is roughly as efficient as the A321neo, but at a much smaller capacity. I know Air France has clever people. I expect them to insist to have the option to convert the CS300 order to the simple stretch.

The following is a ZFW-Range chart based on the information given in the Aircraft characteristics for airport planning document.



It was discussed in May 2017 in an article in my blog. If you want the URL, send a private message. I cannot post it because the moderators would consider it as a "self promotion".

https://verovenia.wordpress.com/2017/05 ... e-stretch/ ..

You pre empted me. I used the latest 69.9t / 154k lbs -300 MTOW, but a slight increase is probably feasible.

The A220-300 has a cost per seat yet 5% higher than the A320neo. It is a small difference, but it is still more costly.

I hardly doubt that a stretched version would reach the economics that have been speculated here. It certainly won't have a cost per seat much lower than the A320neo (I would assume maximum 2% better), and it will still be far higher than the A321neo.

SA280 wrote:

The A220-300 has a cost per seat yet 5% higher than the A320neo. It is a small difference, but it is still more costly.

I hardly doubt that a stretched version would reach the economics that have been speculated here. It certainly won't have a cost per seat much lower than the A320neo (I would assume maximum 2% better), and it will still be far higher than the A321neo.

If it's at 5% difference while having 30 less seats, a stretch to 170-180 seats will definitely see the 320N getting beaten by far more than 2%. I wouldn't doubt a double digits advantage for the 225.

Thanks, Revelation, for the reminder of the deal.

In effect, BBD is paying AIB up to 700M$ for AIB to "buy out" the CSeries. BBD is fire selling many things (training, CRJ, Q400, wire harnesses) to pay for that "sale". It takes time for AIB to steer the production clear, because it was a mess under BBD (personal stories told by two different persons who used to work at BBD, in very different positions but both stories remarkably similar). So, AIB will first milk BBD as much as possible, but it has to be done discreetly, because BBD is already somewhat suspect in the general population in Quebec. Nothing they do is going well, these days, except for executives bonuses. I won't go into the train or subway business, but nothing is glorious there either.

The possibility for AIB to buy out BBD is a saving face. In fact, BBD is the one that will opt out as soon as possible. The IQ share? The government and CDP are just hoping that not too much money is lost… And probably AIB will have to mind that, in order to benefit from continued goodwill.

… In retrospect, Boeing has turned off an incredible deal.

My

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... KKBN1XM2VX

Not yet.

“It’s no secret that the aircraft has potential to be stretched, potential to grow,”

“Will (there) be an A220-500 or not? I cannot tell you that today. It’s definitely not my priority but there is the potential - we will see,”

“I think Airbus is comfortable with the situation today,”

If they do this, they will also do an A322.

JoergAtADN wrote:

VV wrote:

It is very difficult to imagine Airbus would sacrifice the A320neo for A220-500 in AF's fleet.

Airbus is sold out for many years, it has basically three choices:

• Build a new A320 production line, which you can use ~15 years to earn money
• Build a new A220 production line, which you can use 30+ years to earn money
• Do not invest in a new production line and let the competition build these planes

Also, of course, if Airbus has to "sacrifice" the A320 in AF's fleet, would they rather see it replaced by another plane from Airbus or one from Embraer/Boeing? That's a rhetorical question because everyone(?) knows the answer.

scbriml wrote:

JoergAtADN wrote:

VV wrote:

It is very difficult to imagine Airbus would sacrifice the A320neo for A220-500 in AF's fleet.

Airbus is sold out for many years, it has basically three choices:

• Build a new A320 production line, which you can use ~15 years to earn money
• Build a new A220 production line, which you can use 30+ years to earn money
• Do not invest in a new production line and let the competition build these planes

Also, of course, if Airbus has to "sacrifice" the A320 in AF's fleet, would they rather see it replaced by another plane from Airbus or one from Embraer/Boeing? That's a rhetorical question because everyone(?) knows the answer.

It is extremely difficult to imagine Airbus would sacrifice the A320neo and give way to the simple stretch of A220-300. It is the reason why this very efficient version would not see the day any time soon.

I can already imagine Airbus requesting Airbus Canada Limited partnership to finish the current product properly, like finishing the ETOPS certification and extending the operational envelope for take-off and landing to altitudes above 8,000 ft.

In addition, there are rumors the noise level in the cabin is quite high. I have to get some more information on this topic.
It seems the external noise is also NOT better than A320neo. In my opinion that's a source of concern.

For some reasons, I have the feeling there are things Airbus have to fix. Otherwise some airlines might defer the delivery.

And pushing for improvements is a good truck to calm down any wish to develop the stretch.

I am pretty sure the link has been posted.

Obviously they cannot say they want to do it quickly.
I hope airlines will insist on that version such that Airbus launch it as soon as possible. It is an aircraft with fantastic economics and the capability is enough to cover more than 95% European routes.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/13/air ... n-to-do-so

Interesting! If that ZFW range chart above holds up the -500 could prove to be an excellent fit/option at AC particularly if the Max saga drags on and/or doesn't end well.

yowza wrote:

Interesting! If that ZFW range chart above holds up the -500 could prove to be an excellent fit/option at AC particularly if the Max saga drags on and/or doesn't end well.

If a simple stretch of the CS300 with four or five extra seat rows is offered it will certainly be one the most compelling member of the C Series family. It would become a very serious contender in the heart of the market of narrowbody.
It would eat into the market of both A320neo and 737-8.

The potential sales of a simple stretch of CS300 is estimated at 3,000 units. That's the reason they cannot offer it soon as mentioned in the following link.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/13/air ... n-to-do-so

The simple stretch of CS300 can only happen if airlines insist strongly on it.
It is not the case today.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I think Airbus isn't too worried that an A220-500 will cannibalize the A320neo.

A220-500 will be shorter range and have less takeoff performance.

Much like how the A220-300 did to the A319neo?
I'm pretty sure that if range isn't a big factor, which Air France flies the A320 family on domestic and European routes, then they'd likely go with the A220-500 over the A320neo. Likewise, the A220 family may have demonstrated better fuel efficiency than the smaller A320 derivatives (A318 and A319) that they're intended to replace.

precure787 wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I think Airbus isn't too worried that an A220-500 will cannibalize the A320neo.

A220-500 will be shorter range and have less takeoff performance.

Much like how the A220-300 did to the A319neo?

The A319neo had such awful economics that only one airline got it. The A320neo has far better economics than that, and would still have range/performance advantages above the A220-500.

I agree that airlines in need of short range jets will take A220-500s over A320neos. But what about airlines that need the extra range/performance? What about airlines that have lots of A321neos? An A320neo would improve commonality and pax-ex consistency relative to an A220-500. Not to mention the A320neo has a more efficient layout for implementing European-style business class.

Also huge amounts of A320neos have been sold already. So I don't see an A220-500 being a bad choice for Airbus.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

precure787 wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I think Airbus isn't too worried that an A220-500 will cannibalize the A320neo.

A220-500 will be shorter range and have less takeoff performance.

Much like how the A220-300 did to the A319neo?

The A319neo had such awful economics that only one airline got it. The A320neo has far better economics than that, and would still have range/performance advantages above the A220-500.

I agree that airlines in need of short range jets will take A220-500s over A320neos. But what about airlines that need the extra range/performance? What about airlines that have lots of A321neos? An A320neo would improve commonality and pax-ex consistency relative to an A220-500. Not to mention the A320neo has a more efficient layout for implementing European-style business class.

Also huge amounts of A320neos have been sold already. So I don't see an A220-500 being a bad choice for Airbus.

Calling the economics of the A319neo awful, is slightly overdrawn. Worse than a A320, yes, worse than a A220-300, yes, but awful?
The performance of the A319neo is still that good, that if you need a few smaller frames in a A320 family fleet, it is still a viable option.

If you need the advantages of the A319, hot and high performance combined with range, you find nothing equal. But it is a niche.

Looks like AF will need to continue holding its horses:

The French have an expression – “minute, papillon” – which loosely translates as “hold your horses”, and this appears to sum up A220 programme chief Florent Massou’s view on ambitions to stretch the aircraft into the hallowed 150-seat realm dominated for more than three decades by the A320 and Boeing 737.

“It’s good that customers are showing interest in the capability of the platform,” says Massou. “But concentrating on the A220-100 and -300 is what we’re doing day to day. There is no plan today for a stretch.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 01.article

Revelation wrote:

Looks like AF will need to continue holding its horses:

The French have an expression – “minute, papillon” – which loosely translates as “hold your horses”, and this appears to sum up A220 programme chief Florent Massou’s view on ambitions to stretch the aircraft into the hallowed 150-seat realm dominated for more than three decades by the A320 and Boeing 737.

“It’s good that customers are showing interest in the capability of the platform,” says Massou. “But concentrating on the A220-100 and -300 is what we’re doing day to day. There is no plan today for a stretch.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 01.article

I don't think anybody really expected to launch soon. Not even AF. But it's also highly likely that not everybody is showing their cards, and the orders being discussed are years out. Will AF even finish taking their current 220 order by 2025?

TObound wrote:

I don't think anybody really expected to launch soon. Not even AF. But it's also highly likely that not everybody is showing their cards, and the orders being discussed are years out. Will AF even finish taking their current 220 order by 2025?

I'm glad you have the right perspective. Count the chicks after they hatch.

Revelation wrote:

TObound wrote:

I don't think anybody really expected to launch soon. Not even AF. But it's also highly likely that not everybody is showing their cards, and the orders being discussed are years out. Will AF even finish taking their current 220 order by 2025?

I'm glad you have the right perspective. Count the chicks after they hatch.

I'm not entirely sold on mainline carriers needing the 225, especially the Eurolegacies who flying 145+ seats in a 223. I think they could work just fine with 223/321 combo. I think the 225 is most valuable to North American mainlines who might fit it with 150 seats and LCCs who don't want to have to fill a 321N.

I’m interested in your insight on the schism between NA and European markets. I would think a more effieicient (than A320) A220-500 could find a place on both continents, but I’m far from an expert.

OneX123 wrote:

the 787 and 777 are 'potential' common pilot type ratings or am I reading that incorrectly? Is that how it is today??

They aren't currently because there are not enough 787's compared to the number of 777's, only about 1 to 7. This means pilots don't get enough time on 787's to retain their proficiency. At KLM the numbers of both types are or will be not that different. So AF would need to either get more 787's or drop some of their 777's (or both) to be able to use the common type ratings. The alternative is of course to transfer the 787's to KLM. It will all depend on the offers Airbus and Boeing will come up with for AF/KL to replace older planes, such as the A330's at KLM.

Prost wrote:

I’m interested in your insight on the schism between NA and European markets. I would think a more effieicient (than A320) A220-500 could find a place on both continents, but I’m far from an expert.

Yes, it is interesting...this opinion...as the European airlines + KAL have stated high interest in the A220-500 and less the US airlines.

I believe, the estimation of demand of the A220-500 by some board member here is a little bit exaggerated. Yes there is a demand, especially by airlines, who have ordered the A220 for their one type airline, so, Moxy/Breeze, Air Baltic, also Air France, as they have not ordered the A320 neo as A320 ceo replacement e.g. Also KAL has announced that they are willed to take the 10x A220 purchase rights as A220-500. I still believe, the A220-300 will be ordered most, followed by the A220-500 and the A220-100. But will the number of A220-500 orders reach 25 to 30% or even more of all A220 orders? I have my doubts.

And still the biggest question: which engine shall be used? The biggest PW1500G family engine is the PW1524G, which is used by Swiss in the A220-100 and in the A220-300. And as seen, it seems, this strongest version is already at the end of the chain, little problems with the software and it has popped. Will it be possible to increase the output by additional 10 to 15%, needed for the A220-500? Or will a member of the next bigger PW family will be needed, the PW1100? It will be bigger, more drag e.g.less benefit.

I am willed to sit in my armchair and to wait, to see, what Airbus will do.

Prost wrote:

I’m interested in your insight on the schism between NA and European markets. I would think a more effieicient (than A320) A220-500 could find a place on both continents, but I’m far from an expert.

I see much more interest in Europe. Why? Look at how many 1-2h routes AF flies from CDG, or LH,LX from their respective hubs. It’s different on other continents, where you also have much more long NB routes in the mix.

T4thH wrote:

Prost wrote:

I’m interested in your insight on the schism between NA and European markets. I would think a more effieicient (than A320) A220-500 could find a place on both continents, but I’m far from an expert.

Yes, it is interesting...this opinion...as the European airlines + KAL have stated high interest in the A220-500 and less the US airlines.

Just because they aren't talking in the press, doesn't mean they aren't talking.

I would take any bet that Delta and JetBlue are both interested in the 225. Possibly Air Canada too.

DUSZRH wrote:

Prost wrote:

I’m interested in your insight on the schism between NA and European markets. I would think a more effieicient (than A320) A220-500 could find a place on both continents, but I’m far from an expert.

I see much more interest in Europe. Why? Look at how many 1-2h routes AF flies from CDG, or LH,LX from their respective hubs. It’s different on other continents, where you also have much more long NB routes in the mix.

Route length has very little to do with it. The 220 family have over 3300nm of nominal range. That's more than enough for transcontinental flights in North America. Air Canada's launch routes for the 223 are Toronto-San Jose and Montreal-Seattle.

I don't think demand has been all that different between North America and Europe. Heck, more A220s have been sold to DL, AC and B6 than to AF, LX and BT. 210 in North America vs. 140 in Europe.

I think launching an A220-500 could boost sales for the other two types significantly. Even if the -500 was 5 years down the road.

Any airline knowing they will have access to a -500 within the same commonality in a few years would feel more assured when ordering a brand new type of aircraft for their fleets.

JetBuddy wrote:

I think launching an A220-500 could boost sales for the other two types significantly.

I'm not so sure. When a larger model is launched, the smallest model tend to fade away.

Revelation wrote:

Looks like AF will need to continue holding its horses:

The French have an expression – “minute, papillon” – which loosely translates as “hold your horses”, and this appears to sum up A220 programme chief Florent Massou’s view on ambitions to stretch the aircraft into the hallowed 150-seat realm dominated for more than three decades by the A320 and Boeing 737.

“It’s good that customers are showing interest in the capability of the platform,” says Massou. “But concentrating on the A220-100 and -300 is what we’re doing day to day. There is no plan today for a stretch.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 01.article

The MTOW and MZFW increases are all building capability for it.

But build cost must come down before Airbus entertain launching a stretch.

It is a metric of the toxic monopolism within the Industry that the A220-500, an obviously superior product and obviously feasible product, of immense value to society, has not been built yet. This should humiliate everyone.

LCDFlight wrote:

It is a metric of the toxic monopolism within the Industry that the A220-500, an obviously superior product and obviously feasible product, of immense value to society, has not been built yet. This should humiliate everyone.

It is not an superior product for Airbus if they can not extract value from the sales. Many here already discussed it; before the A225 introduced the production needs to be sorted and the ownership of the program tilted towards the favor of Airbus. They are already on the way to cut the costs and increase the number of production. And the ownership might be solved sooner than expected due to the cash problems of Bombardier. Paris 2021 should be a good moment.

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

Well of course, and that is why the “A220” and it’s innovations had to be contained. Even more importantly, the initial investors in it had to suffer a negative return, or else somebody else might invest in other innovative new airliners. Airbus spent a lot of money on the pricing side to make sure that happened. And it did - everything’s good - the most efficient 150 seater has never been announced or flown.

VV wrote:

It is very difficult to imagine Airbus would sacrifice the A320neo for A220-500 in AF's fleet.

In a way this is also a question of character.

Will you ( partially) screw your customer for that extra little bit of short term profit on your side
or do you try to optimally serve him with a product that incurs a short term reduction in profits
but creates a happy camper that will return for more business.

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

It sure will eat into A320 sales.
But isn't it better to lose a few A320 sales for A220s, instead of handing them to Boeing, Sukhoi (I know...) or potentially COMAC?

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

If the profit margin is greater on an A220-500 than A320, then its simple.
If that freed A320 production slot means Airbus can sell a higher margin A321, then its simple

If neither of the above are true, but a combination of (A225 margin + A321 margin) > A320 margin, then its viable.

This is why A220 build cost must come down. Those numbers must add up before the A220-500 goes ahead.

Amiga500 wrote:

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

If the profit margin is greater on an A220-500 than A320, then its simple.
If that freed A320 production slot means Airbus can sell a higher margin A321, then its simple

If neither of the above are true, but a combination of (A225 margin + A321 margin) > A320 margin, then its viable.

This is why A220 build cost must come down. Those numbers must add up before the A220-500 goes ahead.

Indeed. A bit dissapointing that this needs to be explained over and over again.

Amiga500 wrote:

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

If the profit margin is greater on an A220-500 than A320, then its simple.
If that freed A320 production slot means Airbus can sell a higher margin A321, then its simple

If neither of the above are true, but a combination of (A225 margin + A321 margin) > A320 margin, then its viable.

This is why A220 build cost must come down. Those numbers must add up before the A220-500 goes ahead.

Binge, this is the most simple and clear explanation you can have.

PS.: one can expect that the A220-500 will have an higher price than the A320, as it offers lower running costs for the airlines. But if this will lead to an higher margin is a question mark for now.

VV wrote:

It is very difficult to imagine Airbus would sacrifice the A320neo for A220-500 in AF's fleet.

In a way this is also a question of character.

Will you ( partially) screw your customer for that extra little bit of short term profit on your side
or do you try to optimally serve him with a product that incurs a short term reduction in profits
but creates a happy camper that will return for more business.

Nobody gets screwed. There are no sacrifices. Why are people thinking in such negative terms?

The 500 is a relatively easy stretch, fills a traditional 150 seat, high density, relatively short range, niche that the 320neo has grown out out of, and as has been pointed out endlessly the 320 is sold out for years. Win win for Airbus. The weight increases point the way. It's perfect for Europe and east half (dense) USA.

I'll agree with the bet earlier about interest from JetBlue, Delta, and Air Canada. And I'll raise that bet. I bet 10 dollars Canadian that the 500 will be launched by EOY 2021 with EIS by summer 2025. And when its launched, all of the sudden, many airlines are going to be interested in the A220.

Airbus is covered from 110-200 seats for the next years while Boeing is floundering with the MAX and currently can't even cover the 160-200 sears due to the grounding.

Offering the 225 now could help take pressure off the 320 production line. Might be a good move to do it sooner (as in now) rather than later. Plus I don't see how it would kill the 320 as, it still carries somewhat more pax and has significantly more range. Could also draw off people who are only choosing the Max because of the long wait for 320 production slots.

744SPX wrote:

Offering the 225 now could help take pressure off the 320 production line. Might be a good move to do it sooner (as in now) rather than later. Plus I don't see how it would kill the 320 as, it still carries somewhat more pax and has significantly more range. Could also draw off people who are only choosing the Max because of the long wait for 320 production slots.

The 220 is selling right now. That's the thing. They don't even need the 225. The 220 backlog at current ramp predictions has a 4 year backlog. And that's before DL has taken 223s. Before B6 and AF and have taken a single aircraft. And before Air Canada has taken their second 223. Air Baltic hasn't even taken half their 223 orders. Right now, DL, B6, AF and AC alone hold enough options and purchase rights to sell out the production line through 2025. And they are all but guaranteed to do that.

This is why there's no rush on the 225. Airbus has a solid 3 years to even make a decision. They can sort out ownership issues, optimize the production process, work on getting the price down and make PIPs which improve efficiency and boost range-payload.

Eventually if/when they pull the trigger on the 225, they'll be able to deliver in 2 years. It will be a very fast turn from the announcement to EIS. Paris airshow years are 2021 and 2023. The latter sounds great to have EIS in Summer 2025.

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

Seems AB doesn't care, they do the exactly same thing already now with the new 252t MTOW 330neos and their own A350. Delta changed some orders because of that. There probably is some benefit there ( I hope )

A300neo wrote:

SA280 wrote:

The most important question to be answered is how much of the sales would come at the expense of A320 sales canibalization?

Seems AB doesn't care, they do the exactly same thing already now with the new 252t MTOW 330neos and their own A350. Delta changed some orders because of that. There probably is some benefit there ( I hope )

252t MTOW A330 or is it 251t?
Do you have more information on the 252t MTOW A330neo?